The reign of amillenial theology

[KenH]

Originally posted by rjprince:
I am out of town myself right now, but will provide reference sources to document in the next few days.

I would appreciate seeing your evidence. Daniel David has been a total flop in that area.

 

[rjprince]

As far as a gap in resurrections, read Rev 20:13. OldReg, on another thread we discussed the ones who were resurrected around the time of Christ's resurrection (Matt 27:52-53).

 

[Daniel David]

Oh, now that is interesting. Okay, please explain how Christians are in verse 4 (those who live and reign with Christ) and Christians are also in verse 5 (the rest of the dead).

Are you really suggesting that there are Christians who live and reign with Christ and there are other Christians who are in some kind of dormant state?

Wow, how do you type with that straightjacket on Ken?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Even if you think the 1000 years are figurative, you still have a division between the righteous and unrighteous by the 1000 years (or whatever figurative time).

Not if the first resurrection being referred to there is when a Christian dies and goes to Heaven.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Wow, how do you type with that straightjacket on Ken?

Hey, DD, do you really, truly believe as you write...that non-premillers are rubes?

 

[Daniel David]

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillenialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of Old Testament promises.

Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 105-106

Ken, you really don't care. You are just contentious. You have no desire to understand and have no love for truth.

 

[KenH]

Answer my question, DD, if you have any guts at all, do you believe that non-premillers are rubes?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by KenH:
Not if the first resurrection being referred to there is when a Christian dies and goes to Heaven.

Who are the 'rest of the dead' Ken? Are they Christians? Don't you see, they exist at the same time.

There are those who live again and reign with Christ and the rest of the dead.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for

Exactly. Premillennialism is a leftover from Judaistic materialistic thinking...the kind of thinking that led the Jews to misunderstand and then to eventually crucify Jesus.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Who are the 'rest of the dead' Ken? Are they Christians? Don't you see, they exist at the same time.

Yeah. There are people in Heaven right now while people are also existing on this earth right now.

Don't you have the courage to answer my question about your attitude toward non-premillers, DD?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by KenH:
Answer my question, DD, if you have any guts at all, do you believe that non-premillers are rubes?

Answering your dare hardly proves whether or not one has guts. How about following the discussion instead of hyperventalating while you type?

To answer your question, I think that all non-premillers are wrong. Some are wrong by choice, others ignorance, etc.

 

[KenH]

Do you think that a non-premiller is saved, DD?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
To answer your question, I think that all premillers are wrong. Some are wrong by choice, others ignorance, etc.

I totally agree with you here...

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for

Exactly. Premillennialism is a leftover from Judaistic materialistic thinking...the kind of thinking that led the Jews to misunderstand and then to eventually crucify Jesus. </font>[/QUOTE]The Jewish problem wasn't that they didn't understand reign of the Messiah on earth. It was that they gave that the primary emphasis over justification and the fact that the Messiah would have to die and rise again.

Even in Acts 1, the disciples are still asking about the kingdom. Christ didn't rebuke them, he just told them they weren't to know the timing of its coming.

Sorry Ken.

Next.

 

[KenH]

I wonder if DD mis-typed?

Or maybe he has finally seen the error of premillennialism.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
It was that they gave that the primary emphasis over justification and the fact that the Messiah would have to die and rise again.

So, DD, do you think that Jesus came to earth to establish a literal, physical kingdom in the 1st century A.D.?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
Who are the 'rest of the dead' Ken? Are they Christians? Don't you see, they exist at the same time.

Yeah. There are people in Heaven right now while people are also existing on this earth right now.

Don't you have the courage to answer my question about your attitude toward non-premillers, DD? </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, you are all over the place here. I don't think you have thought this one through at all.

If verse 4 is about those in heaven, and verse 5 is about believers on the earth, are you saying that believers are not presently seated in high places reigning with Christ? You are totally going back on the amill position. You are just throwing out answers hoping I won't respond.

Further, just for my own knowledge, please tell me why those already in heaven looked forward to reigning upon the earth (Rev. 5:10). Thanks.

 

[KenH]

Hey, DD, how do you get around these words of Jesus to defend your idea of a kingdom on this world, this earth -

John 18:36 (ESV)
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

Jesus could have set up a physical kingdom right there and then if that had been His intention. He could have had twelve legions of angels instantly at his disposal.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
It was that they gave that the primary emphasis over justification and the fact that the Messiah would have to die and rise again.

So, DD, do you think that Jesus came to earth to establish a literal, physical kingdom in the 1st century A.D.? </font>[/QUOTE]No I don't. Christ said as much. The O.T. clearly included several things to have happen prior to the reign upon the earth.

One of those things was a widespread salvation to the Gentiles. 1st century Jew wanted nothing to do with that.